Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A alternate reality)
Background I'm confused by the last sentence, that says as a nod to the Jeffrie's design, the rim of the saucer was changed from vertical to nearly 90 degrees. Isn't that the same thing? Did you mean to say it was beveled more like the original at a nearly 45 degree angle? A 90 degree angle is a perfect square turn (or edge), which the Prime movie Enterprise had, and the one from the Kelvin universe. The original had a slightly beveled edge to the rim, is this what this sentence is saying? But "vertical" to "90 degrees" is the same thing and no change. Clarify? Thanks! 03:06, July 29, 2016 (UTC)Bladerunner :yes that is what i meant to say and your description "beveled more like the original at a nearly 45 degree angle" is perfect, you should add it. Deevolution (talk) 03:43, July 29, 2016 (UTC) ____ I have looked all over the page and cannot find an "add edit" button. I'm a relative newbie at editing, and don't mind someone else doing it if it helps clarify the article. I even read the "help editing" section, which insists there is an "edit page" button on EVERY page. Can't find it! I've found Wikis in general to be very clumsy to navigate in the talk and edit functions unless it's something that a person does often, it is very non-intuitive! Never just a simple button with a dialog box, but always some arbitrary elements and Wiki-specific codes like "add four tildas before your sig". Why? Why can't you just sign your name? It seems like the early days when user interfaces were different in every program rather than now where they are pretty much 99% standardized and in a format most people can understand. It really could be a much easier and reach a wider knowledge base with a modern, standard user interface with easy to understand buttons, ala IMdB. And I'm fairly experienced at this stuff, but for some reason, Wiki's "language" and (to me) disorganized way of allowing edits and conversations just doesn't translate well to me! I'm sure to many it is very simple, but even with all my experience I still end up going in circles and trying links at random trying to find what should be a simple edit box, that requires so special characters or formatting just to add info or ask a question. It actually keeps many people from contributing, I think, if I can spend so much time trying to figure it out and I have many years working with computers and online webpages, even HTML coding, but at some point if you can't even find the door to get in, a person can give up! If it's open source, it ought to be more accessible to those who may not have a lot of intricate Wiki editing coding language but who may be a treasure trove of valuable information to share. Sorry for that rant, it just seems like a simple thing to do and they make it very difficult, but like most things, it probably makes perfect sense to the person who designed it or has a lot of experience following byzantine procedures to do something that should be a internet and windows-friendly BUTTON. LOL! I know this isn't YOUR fault, but have been so frustrated the few times I've tried to edit something. Hopefully someone will write a simple program that translates all the tildas and asterisks "code" symbols into a simple and quick to use "click the button" interface. Thanks for listening. :) Feel free to make the edit, or, if you want to take the time, point out to me where this "edit page" button that the help section is located on "every page" and I'll do my best to do it myself and know how to going forward. :) Thanks! 18:38, July 29, 2016 (UTC)Bladerunner ______Deevolutions, I appreciate the help with the edit! Maybe you have to be a registered user to have those missing "edit page" buttons that the help section insist are there, but non registered people can "talk". Whatever, Wiki-speak is definitely not intuitive, and I appreciate you doing the edit work for me! :) 23:31, July 30, 2016 (UTC)Bladerunnerr ::You can't 'just sign your name' because anyone could just sign your name, and then it would be impossible to know when you were you. I'm not sure why the edit link is not appearing for you; you can contact Wikia for assistance if you want. 31dot (talk) 01:11, July 31, 2016 (UTC) :::The page is protected from new and anon editors. - 02:04, July 31, 2016 (UTC) Construction The article states the Enterprise-A was constructed after the destruction of the original Enterprise, but in the film, the Commodore mentions one ship, 'more advanced' than the Enterprise, already being built at Yorktown. So a more accurate statement would be that the Enterprise-A was already under construction, but was completed after the destruction of the original Enterprise. Ggctuk (talk) 17:59, July 29, 2016 (UTC) True, but how do we know that this ship was the vessel Commodore Paris was talking about when she said a vessel more advanced than the enterprise was being constructed? Tell me your not just adding speculation ( 01:52, August 13, 2016 (UTC)) Personal, I thought it was a reference to the Excelsior ( 19:32, October 2, 2016 (UTC)) Command crew How do we know the command crew of the A, isn't this speculation at the moment? I'd propose removing it until this information is canon. nixel (talk) 21:58, July 31, 2016 (UTC) :Its the Enterprise-A who would get to be the crew Kirk and the other former Enterprise crew, it is canon and no reason to remove it.--Typhuss999 (talk) 22:31, July 31, 2016 (UTC) ::Um... technically, that's entirely speculative. --Defiant (talk) 22:35, July 31, 2016 (UTC) So Kirk and the former crew from the Enterprise are not the command crew of the Enterprise-A , so its some other crew now.--Typhuss999 (talk) 22:39, July 31, 2016 (UTC) Image Shouldn't we add an image of the ship to the page? ( 02:19, August 2, 2016 (UTC)) : Would a screen grab from the digital version of the movie, which appears to be available to some already, be sufficient? Ggctuk (talk) 12:54, September 29, 2016 (UTC) ::Uploading pirated content, or content that appears to be pirated, will result in a block, no exceptions. The film hasn't been released yet. - 15:36, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :::You will have to wait until November 1st when it is released on Blu-ray and DVD, then a screencap site will get the screencaps from the movie.--Typhuss999 (talk) 15:49, September 29, 2016 (UTC) :: comes out Oct. 4th, but images that look pirated will still be deleted and the uploader blocked. There are for image quality, and pirated content generally never comes close. - 18:10, September 29, 2016 (UTC) Third ship named Enterprise is even canon? Since Star Trek Ongoing series of comics was taken as canon (by Orci), we know from Robert April that this version of Enterprise is a third one (considering that NX-01 left the service in few years after Coalition Of Planets was founded). Then we know that April's ship was first until he gave command under his first officer: Alexander Marcus (who as I presume was a captain of first Enterprise until Christopher Pike took the mantle) and we know that his ship was decommisioned maybe even the same year as NCC-1701 left the shipyard (2250's). So concluding that, this is a third Federation starship bearing name Enterprise. -swgs- 15:52, August 3, 2016 (UTC) :Memory Alpha only considers what is on a TV or movie screen as canon source material. Memory Beta includes all licensed products; feel free to contribute such information there. 31dot (talk) 22:30, August 3, 2016 (UTC) The Enterprise (NX-01) was NOT a Federation ship. It was a United Earth vessel operated by Starfleet. ( 01:55, August 13, 2016 (UTC)) :The comic books based on the new movies indicate that there was another Federation Starship Enterprise after the NX-01 and before the NCC-1701. That's what's being referred to here. 31dot (talk) 02:32, August 13, 2016 (UTC) Comic books are NOT canon. ( 15:47, August 17, 2016 (UTC)) ::Yah. We know. See his first comment above about canon material. -- sulfur (talk) 15:59, August 17, 2016 (UTC) :::While probably true in terms of the onscreen canon, since I doubt they'd change the notion of -A standing for the first ship to follow, technically it's speculation, since we don't have a dedication plaque actually saying "second starship to bear the name". --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 12:15, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::::We've only seen the 1701 and the 1701-A in the Alternate reality. Seems pretty clear cut. - Compvox (talk) 12:21, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::A wiki cannot operate with "seems". All it means is that we've seen two Federation starships named Enterprise in the alternate reality onscreen canon. I agree, it probably is the second Federation starship to bear the name, but there is no need to say it in the text (or to assume that the comic starship existed in the highest canon) until we're sure. We poke holes in every sentence in order to remove unnecessary assumptions. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 12:36, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::::I guess "is" pretty clear cut. We have only seen the two. - Compvox (talk) 12:43, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::Would you swear to that in a Federation court of law, or would you clarify that you'd only ever seen two in the, er, documentary footage, but that you don't actually know that there haven't been more? --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 12:53, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::::Yes I live the the 23rd century (Alternate reality) ;) I'm kidding on that. Calm down, we just disagree. - Compvox (talk) 13:01, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::It doesn't matter that it's fictional. You've seen your neighbors drive one car, then another. By your logic, you would solemnly swear that your neighbors are currently owning their second car ever, without having checked with them first. (It's simple, commonsense logic.) --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 13:54, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::::I solemnly swear to the Vulcanianest of logic. I'm done. - Compvox (talk) 14:28, August 22, 2016 (UTC) Constitution Class? Is the Enterprise-A confirmed to be a Constitution-class vessel anywhere? While it does share a lot of similarities to its predecessor there are also some noticeable differences and until official word is given on the ship's class, I think calling it a Constitution-class is speculating. Ggctuk (talk) 07:35, August 13, 2016 (UTC) :Did you even see the movie? It was obviously a Constitution-class ( 06:44, August 21, 2016 (UTC)) ::The Kelvin Timeline Enterprise-A-type Constitution-class is much less different from the Enterprise-nil-type than the Prime Timeline Enterprise-type Constitution-class was from the Prime Timeline original-type Constitution-class. Plus, the real-world Paramount side of things has a standing policy not to name any starship class after the Enterprise, which reached its silliness apex when a class of starships where the Enterprise was the first ship built and commissioned was not called Enterprise-class but NX-class. Kittyburger (talk) 15:12, January 1, 2017 (UTC) Clearly I did because how else can I say that it carries similarities to its predecessor. But given that its appearance is also different in quite a few obvious ways to its predecessor, a small list I can post if you want, and given that its class is never confirmed onscreen, at this point in time it's a bit speculative to say it's a Constitution Class. Ggctuk (talk) 07:05, August 21, 2016 (UTC) ::It isn't, but other major and minor refits haven't changed the class before. Even if they probably should have. - Compvox (talk) 10:19, August 21, 2016 (UTC) Those are refits, however. This is an entirely newly-built, for all we know one-of-a-kind ship, outright stated to be more advanced than its predecessor. Ggctuk (talk) 15:15, September 19, 2016 (UTC) :::The Enterprise-B was built different from the ground up, though the design was just a refit of the Excelsior-class instead of a new class, and the same holds true here, until proven otherwise, and more advanced simply means a fews years have past since the original Enterprise was launched. It's speculation to assume that the fairly minor changes to the overall sturucture here are enough for this to have to be a different class, when we have multiple examples of that not being the case before, with plenty of those being more drastic than these. - 04:24, October 1, 2016 (UTC) ::::But nobody is speculating that it has to be a different class. The proposed position is "we don't know yet". There have also been examples where existing models with minor to zero modifications have been reused under different class names. The Klingon bird of prey classes, Soyuz vs. Miranda, Yellowstone- vs. Danube-class runabouts — and the new E-A isn't even such a reused model, but rather Sean Hargreaves's moderate redesign based on its predecessor. ::::Leaving out class information doesn't mean MA has concluded that yes, it definitely is another class; "we don't know" is a perfectly valid and safe position. Why risk later fixing Constitution-class to something else, thus admitting to an error which may have been propagated to any number of sites, instead of simply adding missing information with no harm done? We're not that hungry for facts. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 22:01, November 1, 2016 (UTC) :::::Agreed. As the policies and guidelines clearly state, "If we don't know, then leave it blank." (see the second stanza of Memory Alpha:What Memory Alpha is not#What Memory Alpha articles are not). --Defiant (talk) 22:39, November 1, 2016 (UTC) :::Except that doesn't work here, because "blank" isn't really an option, it's either Connie or Enterprise-A-type. Also, while there is only one example of a Federation ship model being used unaltered for a different class, the Soyuz was modified, there are many, many examples of altered or completely new models being the same class. The easiest example is the alt Enterprise herself, which was modified for each film, and only IDed as a Connie in STID, if I remember correctly, so unless we're going to state she was a Starship-class only for ST09 and unknown in Beyond, we can use common sense here and say that since the basic shape is the same, and we don't have any reason to think otherwise, excepting one alternate timeline prototype runabout, and the never changing except in in-universe size Klingon BoP, that for simplicity's sake this is a Connie until stated not to be. - 17:46, November 23, 2016 (UTC) ::::But a blank is supported by the template. Let's face it, those many examples of slightly different designs sharing a class name are also mostly conjectural, because Memory Alpha has decided to adopt the Encyclopedia naming policy, even though it conflicts with MA's basic "onscreen information is canon, Okuda's works are not" principle. In a similar vein, whenever it says that something occurred "in 2379", it would be better to say "c. 2379", and come up with simple ways of removing other such assumptions. ::::See, ideally, most individual ships wouldn't have a stated class at all, though background notes can be included noting the official names. Let us be clear on this - Memory Alpha is taking a guess here, and you're not too concerned if that guess should be copied/pasted as fact on many websites and eventually made official. In that case, Memory Alpha will have been responsible for a creative intervention, as opposed to merely documenting the canon. That's not encyclopedic when we can simply avoid mentioning the class. Yes, on the one hand, even the original 1701 was redesigned for Beyond, but on the other hand, Hargreaves explicitly made it a point to make the 1701-A different. I don't know, so I don't want to guess. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 08:19, December 7, 2016 (UTC) ::::Ggctuk: you should definitely add that quote from Hargreaves saying that it was meant to be Constitution-class. That still wouldn't make it canonical, and the issue here is that MA shouldn't make assumptions about the canon (if it has in the past, then those pages should be gradually corrected). -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 09:02, December 7, 2016 (UTC) Size While no size has yet been given by the filmmakers, it seems the Enterprise-A is much smaller than its predecessor as examined here: http://trekclivos79.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/some-kind-of-new-starship.html Ggctuk (talk) 14:27, September 20, 2016 (UTC) :That site offers no detailed analysis and is obviously biased against Paramount's right to do what they want with ship sizes in their own franchise. While the 2009 Enterprise was all over the place initially, eventually the figures converged onto 2379.75 feet, and Tex Kadonaga's STID size chart shows that the Vengeance at 4790 feet was designed to be twice the length of the E, so the intended scale is now clear. Designer Sean Hargreaves has reportedly confirmed on Facebook (John Eaves's page?) that the A is about the same size as the 2009 version, but unfortunately I couldn't track down the exact comment for inclusion in the background section. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 11:19, November 2, 2016 (UTC) ::Hargreaves discusses size (and other aspects of the Ent-A design) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A2r5PDSc4g --Defiant (talk) 12:29, November 2, 2016 (UTC) Removed speculations I've removed the following speculations about this Enterprise, "It was noted to be the only ship more advanced than the ," and, "was given to and his crew." We certainly can't say either for sure (yet). In fact, in a recent speculative Facebook poll, it was voted that the line referring to "the only ship more advanced than the Enterprise" was actually a reference to the Excelsior. So, obviously, we can't say for sure what ship it refers to. --Defiant (talk) 08:58, March 7, 2017 (UTC) :We're not going to have this conversation again. - 14:00, March 7, 2017 (UTC)